Podcast appearances and mentions of Mark Lemley

As Elon Musk steps away from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the chaotic legacy of his aggressive assault on federal agencies continues to reverberate throughout the government. Musk's goal — slashing $1 trillion from the federal budget — has fallen far short. At most, it has cut $31.8 billion of federal funding, a number that the Financial Times reports is “opaque and overstated.” Notably, the richest man on Earth's businesses have received a comparable amount of government funding, most of it going to SpaceX, which remains untouched by DOGE's budget ax.Stepping in to carry the torch is Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and a key architect of Project 2025, the sweeping conservative playbook to consolidate executive power. Under his stewardship, DOGE will continue its mission to dismantle the federal government from within.”Access to all of this information gives extraordinary power to the worst people,” says Mark Lemley, the director of Stanford Law School's program in law, science, and technology. Lemley is suing DOGE on behalf of federal employees for violating the Privacy Act. This week on The Intercept Briefing, Lemley and Intercept newsroom counsel and reporter Shawn Musgrave join host Jordan Uhl to take stock of the legal challenges mounting against the Trump administration's agenda. As the executive branch grows more hostile to checks on its powers, the courts remain the last, fragile line of defense. “ There have now been hundreds of court decisions on issues, some involving the Privacy Act, but a wide variety of the Trump administration's illegal activities,” says Lemley. In partnership with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and State Democracy Defenders, Lemley's suit accuses the U.S. Office of Personnel Management of violating the federal Privacy Act by handing over sensitive data to DOGE without consent or legal authority.Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington

This Day in Legal History: MLK BornOn January 15, 1929, Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most influential figures in American history, was born in Atlanta, Georgia. As a Baptist minister and leader of the Civil Rights Movement, King played a pivotal role in advancing racial equality and social justice in the United States. His commitment to nonviolent protest, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, led to significant legal and social changes, including the dismantling of segregation and the affirmation of civil rights for African Americans.King's leadership during landmark events such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 and the March on Washington in 1963 brought national attention to systemic racism and civil rights abuses. His iconic "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial articulated a vision of racial harmony and equality, influencing the passage of critical legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.Despite opposition and threats, King remained steadfast in his pursuit of justice, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for his efforts. His advocacy for economic equality and opposition to the Vietnam War further broadened his legacy. Tragically, King's life was cut short on April 4, 1968, when he was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee, while supporting a labor strike.King's birthday is now recognized as a federal holiday in the United States, known as Martin Luther King Jr. Day, celebrated annually on the third Monday of January. This commemoration underscores his enduring impact on American law and society, as well as the ongoing struggle for civil rights and equality. King's work has left an indelible mark, shaping legal reforms and inspiring movements for justice around the world.Stanford law professor and renowned intellectual property scholar Mark Lemley has withdrawn as legal counsel for Meta Platforms Inc. in a high-profile generative AI copyright case. Lemley cited CEO Mark Zuckerberg's controversial recent actions, including ending diversity initiatives and fact-checking on Facebook, and promoting "masculine energy," as reasons for his departure. While Lemley believes Meta has a strong case in the AI copyright dispute, he stated he could not continue representing the company in good conscience.Lemley's withdrawal leaves attorneys from Cooley LLP and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton to defend Meta against allegations from authors, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, that Meta's AI improperly trains on copyrighted works. The case addresses a critical issue in AI development: whether training models on copyrighted material constitutes infringement. Authors argue this practice unfairly exploits their work, while AI advocates claim it constitutes fair use, given the scale and indirect impact of the works.Lemley, a distinguished academic and practitioner, has contributed significantly to intellectual property law, including involvement in key cases like Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. His departure underscores concerns about Meta's evolving corporate ethos. Additionally, Lemley announced he would deactivate his Threads account and avoid supporting Meta financially, though he stopped short of leaving Facebook entirely to preserve his social connections.Meta Lawyer Lemley Quits AI Case Citing Zuckerberg 'Descent' (1)The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk, accusing him of delaying the required disclosure of his significant Twitter stake in 2022. According to the SEC, Musk violated securities laws by failing to disclose his 5% ownership in Twitter within the 10-day deadline, waiting until April 4, 2022, to reveal a 9.2% stake. This delay allegedly allowed Musk to acquire over $500 million in shares at lower prices, disadvantaging other investors. Twitter's stock price surged 27% after Musk's disclosure. The SEC's suit seeks to impose civil fines and recover any illicit profits Musk gained. Musk's lawyer, Alex Spiro, dismissed the lawsuit as a baseless effort by the SEC, framing the issue as a minor administrative oversight. Musk, who later purchased Twitter for $44 billion in October 2022 and rebranded it as X, has a history of legal disputes with the SEC, including a 2018 settlement over misleading Tesla privatization tweets. He has also faced shareholder lawsuits for the delayed disclosure. Despite these challenges, Musk's substantial wealth and influence continue to draw attention, with his attorney accusing the SEC of harassment amid leadership changes at the agency.US SEC sues Elon Musk over late disclosure of Twitter stake | ReutersPam Bondi, Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, will face a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing amid scrutiny over her past decisions and ties to the former president. Bondi, Florida's attorney general from 2011 to 2019, played a prominent role in Trump's 2019 impeachment defense and supported his post-2020 election fraud claims. Democrats are expected to question her impartiality, particularly in light of Trump's comments about using the Justice Department to target political adversaries.Bondi has faced criticism for declining to investigate Trump University after her campaign received a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation, a decision she has defended as unrelated to the contribution. She also worked as a lobbyist for Ballard Partners, representing clients like Amazon, Uber, and GEO Group, some of which have had dealings with the Justice Department under the Biden administration. Senators are likely to probe potential conflicts of interest arising from her lobbying background.Bondi has pledged to consult ethics officials on any conflicts. Her confirmation hearing follows contentious reviews of other Trump Cabinet picks, with Democrats raising concerns about loyalty to Trump's personal interests over those of the United States. The outcome of Bondi's nomination remains uncertain, as the Republican-majority Senate considers her extensive ties to Trump and her record as a lobbyist and public official.Trump's attorney general pick Pam Bondi to face US Senate grilling | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

As we close out 2023, we are replaying some of our most listened to episodes. Not surprisingly, AI was the hot topic this year and as its acceptance grows, so to tough questions, like whether AI developers need permission to use copyrighted works and other IP before using it to train artificial intelligence? In a very popular episode, Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford explained whey he does not think so because he believes that copyrighted works used to train AI fall should under the fair use exception to copyright law. Professor Lemley is the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, an author of seven books and more than 130 articles on intellectual property, antitrust and related areas of the law. He is also a co-founder of Lex Machina and most recently of Counsel to Lex Lumina, a boutique IP law firm. Professor Lemley argues that AI companies should be permitted to use copyrighted works to train AI models without first getting permission from owners because of the benefits AI will yield and the impossibility of tracking down millions of copyright owners to get permission. He also believes that it is a fair use for AI developers to use works protected by intellectual property laws to train artificial intelligence models because such a use is transformative and the more data available to the AI, the more accurate it will be.

This is the second episode of six in the special 2023 Symposium Edition Podcast of STLR Conversations. We are sharing the recordings of our Symposium titled “Accountability and Liability in Generative AI: Challenges and Perspectives."   Author: Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School   Commentator: Matthew Sag, Professor of Law and Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Data Science, Emory University School of Law   Moderator: Joshua Simmons, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis   A link to slides will be posted here when available.  

Michael Running Wolf is a Northern Cheyenne/Lakota/Blackfeet indigenous man who grew up in Montana. He's worked for Amazon, but eventually left in order to pursue his lifelong goal of building XR experiences that integrate with AI for language education and to reclaim and preserve indigenous languages. The biggest blocker is that most natural language processing approaches have a hard to dealing with the infinite words that come from polysynthetic languages like many North American indigenous languages. I had a chance to catch up with Running Wolf at Augmented World Expo where he talked about his aspirations for researching solutions to these open problems, and eventually creating immersive experiences that can create a dynamic relational context that alters how indigenous languages are spoken. Also be sure to check out Running Wolf on a panel discussion about "New Technology, Old Property Laws" at the Existing Law and Extended Reality Symposium at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center along with fellow panelists including Mark Lemley, Tiffany Li, and Micaela Mantegna. This is a listener-supported podcast through the Voices of VR Patreon. Music: Fatality

Do AI developers need permission to use copyrighted works and other IP before using it to train artificial intelligence? Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford does not think so. He believes using copyrighted works to train AI should fall under the fair use exception to copyright law. Professor Lemley is the Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, an author of seven books and more than 130 articles on intellectual property, antitrust and related areas of the law. He is also a co-founder of Lex Machina and most recently Of Counsel to Lex Lumina, a boutique IP law firm. Professor Lemley argues that AI companies should be permitted to use copyrighted works to train AI models without first getting permission from owners because of the benefits AI will yield and the impossibility of tracking down millions of copyright owners to get permission. He also believes that it is a fair use for AI developers to use works protected by intellectual property laws to train artificial intelligence models because such a use is transformative and the more data available to the AI, the more accurate it will be.

The conventional criticism of the current make up of the U.S. Supreme Court is that it is populated by a majority of rabid right wing partisans, overturning precedents in order to achieve political objectives. And that its decisions are out of step with a majority of Americans. Our guest, Mark Lemley, Professor of Law at … Continue reading EP 636 An ‘Imperial Supreme Court' Asserts Its Power →

Attorney General Phil Weiser appears as "Judge" Weiser in this mock trial of Wanda Maximoff (perpetrator of one of the most controversial events in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) for an entertaining fusion of legal principles, Marvel superheroes, and a tech law and policy discussion. Special thanks to the Legal Geeks for serving as our lawyers: Josh Gilliand and Nari Ely argue for the prosecution; Mark Lemley and Bethany Bengfort argue for the defense.To learn more about Phil, visit philforcolorado.com.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thelegalgeeks)

We've written a lot about the Oracle/Google case over API copyrights as it wound its way through the courts, but the Supreme Court ruling has such widespread implications that there is still plenty to unpack. This week, we're joined by two top experts on intellectual property — Berkeley Law's Pamela Samuelson and Stanford Law's Mark Lemley, who recently co-wrote a paper on the subject — to discuss in detail what impact this landmark case has on copyright and interoperability. Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3898154

For years, courts have been trying to hash out whether Google stole code from Oracle. Way back when Google was creating its Android mobile operating system, it decided to use some Java code that would make the system compatible with a lot of programs. But the Java code was owned by Oracle, which then sued, and it’s been in the courts ever since. The Supreme Court this week finally ruled that what Google did was allowed and didn’t infringe on Oracle’s copyrights. Meghan McCarty Carino speaks with Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford, where he teaches copyright and internet law. He said the ruling means that a standard practice, of one company building on the work of another so that their products work together, didn’t get blown up.

For years, courts have been trying to hash out whether Google stole code from Oracle. Way back when Google was creating its Android mobile operating system, it decided to use some Java code that would make the system compatible with a lot of programs. But the Java code was owned by Oracle, which then sued, and it’s been in the courts ever since. The Supreme Court this week finally ruled that what Google did was allowed and didn’t infringe on Oracle’s copyrights. Meghan McCarty Carino speaks with Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford, where he teaches copyright and internet law. He said the ruling means that a standard practice, of one company building on the work of another so that their products work together, didn’t get blown up.

For years, courts have been trying to hash out whether Google stole code from Oracle. Way back when Google was creating its Android mobile operating system, it decided to use some Java code that would make the system compatible with a lot of programs. But the Java code was owned by Oracle, which then sued, and it’s been in the courts ever since. The Supreme Court this week finally ruled that what Google did was allowed and didn’t infringe on Oracle’s copyrights. Meghan McCarty Carino speaks with Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford, where he teaches copyright and internet law. He said the ruling means that a standard practice, of one company building on the work of another so that their products work together, didn’t get blown up.

For years, courts have been trying to hash out whether Google stole code from Oracle. Way back when Google was creating its Android mobile operating system, it decided to use some Java code that would make the system compatible with a lot of programs. But the Java code was owned by Oracle, which then sued, and it’s been in the courts ever since. The Supreme Court this week finally ruled that what Google did was allowed and didn’t infringe on Oracle’s copyrights. Meghan McCarty Carino speaks with Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford, where he teaches copyright and internet law. He said the ruling means that a standard practice, of one company building on the work of another so that their products work together, didn’t get blown up.

The European Union is proposing new regulations on big tech companies and how they use their data, potentially to the detriment of competing companies. That is on the heels of the FTC and 46 states suing Facebook, and the FTC opening investigations into lots of other tech companies. One thing that both the EU and the FTC say is that these big tech companies impose anti-competitive conditions on third-party developers that operate on their platforms. Apple has been criticized over its App Store rules and Amazon over how it treats third-party sellers. The EU regulations would determine some companies to be “gatekeepers” subject to different rules. Molly speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford. Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

The European Union is proposing new regulations on big tech companies and how they use their data, potentially to the detriment of competing companies. That is on the heels of the FTC and 46 states suing Facebook, and the FTC opening investigations into lots of other tech companies. One thing that both the EU and the FTC say is that these big tech companies impose anti-competitive conditions on third-party developers that operate on their platforms. Apple has been criticized over its App Store rules and Amazon over how it treats third-party sellers. The EU regulations would determine some companies to be “gatekeepers” subject to different rules. Molly speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford. Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

The European Union is proposing new regulations on big tech companies and how they use their data, potentially to the detriment of competing companies. That is on the heels of the FTC and 46 states suing Facebook, and the FTC opening investigations into lots of other tech companies. One thing that both the EU and the FTC say is that these big tech companies impose anti-competitive conditions on third-party developers that operate on their platforms. Apple has been criticized over its App Store rules and Amazon over how it treats third-party sellers. The EU regulations would determine some companies to be “gatekeepers” subject to different rules. Molly speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford. Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

The European Union is proposing new regulations on big tech companies and how they use their data, potentially to the detriment of competing companies. That is on the heels of the FTC and 46 states suing Facebook, and the FTC opening investigations into lots of other tech companies. One thing that both the EU and the FTC say is that these big tech companies impose anti-competitive conditions on third-party developers that operate on their platforms. Apple has been criticized over its App Store rules and Amazon over how it treats third-party sellers. The EU regulations would determine some companies to be “gatekeepers” subject to different rules. Molly speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford. Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

In this episode, Samantha Zyontz, postdoctoral research fellow in intellectual property at Stanford Law School and a fellow of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences, discusses her new article Does Alice Target Patent Trolls?, coauthored with Mark Lemley. They argue that the Supreme Court’s 2014 patent-eligibility decision in Alice v. CLS Bank has had a mixed impact, including some surprising results. Dr. Zyontz explains that biotechnology and life science-related patents are more likely than software or IT-related patents to survive an Alice challenge in court litigation. However, it is individual inventors and inventor-started companies—not patent trolls—who are most likely to lose their patents. The full article has been accepted to the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies and is available on SSRN. Dr. Zyontz is on Twitter at @SZyontz.This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor in the School of Law and Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The technology we use every day is built using thousands of lines of code — some of it written decades ago. Now, the Supreme Court is deciding when that code is free for others to use and when it is not. Back when Google was creating Android, the company decided to make it work with the popular programming language Java so it would be easier to make Android apps. But to do that, Google used Java code that is now owned by Oracle. Oracle sued, and several trials later, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands. Amy Scott speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, where he teaches copyright and internet law.

The technology we use every day is built using thousands of lines of code — some of it written decades ago. Now, the Supreme Court is deciding when that code is free for others to use and when it is not. Back when Google was creating Android, the company decided to make it work with the popular programming language Java so it would be easier to make Android apps. But to do that, Google used Java code that is now owned by Oracle. Oracle sued, and several trials later, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands. Amy Scott speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, where he teaches copyright and internet law.

The technology we use every day is built using thousands of lines of code — some of it written decades ago. Now, the Supreme Court is deciding when that code is free for others to use and when it is not. Back when Google was creating Android, the company decided to make it work with the popular programming language Java so it would be easier to make Android apps. But to do that, Google used Java code that is now owned by Oracle. Oracle sued, and several trials later, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands. Amy Scott speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, where he teaches copyright and internet law.

The technology we use every day is built using thousands of lines of code — some of it written decades ago. Now, the Supreme Court is deciding when that code is free for others to use and when it is not. Back when Google was creating Android, the company decided to make it work with the popular programming language Java so it would be easier to make Android apps. But to do that, Google used Java code that is now owned by Oracle. Oracle sued, and several trials later, it’s in the Supreme Court’s hands. Amy Scott speaks with Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University, where he teaches copyright and internet law.

Uber looking to buy Grubhub. Facebook buying Giphy. Apple nabbing NextVR.  Host Molly Wood speaks with Mark Lemley, who teaches antitrust and internet law at Stanford University, about whether regulators will take action against any of these deals. He says Facebook buying Giphy, for example, may not be any worse than its purchase of Instagram. But the combined weight of so many acquisitions could prompt regulators to wade in. 

Uber looking to buy Grubhub. Facebook buying Giphy. Apple nabbing NextVR.  Host Molly Wood speaks with Mark Lemley, who teaches antitrust and internet law at Stanford University, about whether regulators will take action against any of these deals. He says Facebook buying Giphy, for example, may not be any worse than its purchase of Instagram. But the combined weight of so many acquisitions could prompt regulators to wade in. 

Uber looking to buy Grubhub. Facebook buying Giphy. Apple nabbing NextVR.  Host Molly Wood speaks with Mark Lemley, who teaches antitrust and internet law at Stanford University, about whether regulators will take action against any of these deals. He says Facebook buying Giphy, for example, may not be any worse than its purchase of Instagram. But the combined weight of so many acquisitions could prompt regulators to wade in. 

In this episode, Camilla Hrdy, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Akron School of Law, and Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, discuss their article "Abandoning Trade Secrets," which will be published in the Stanford Law Review. They begin by explaining what trade secrets are and what they protect. They describe the conventional association of trade secrets with patents and observe that analogizing to trademark could be more helpful. They argue that trade secret law should draw on the trademark abandonment doctrine, and explain how it would improve trade secret policy. Hrdy is on Twitter at @CamillaHrdy and Lemley is on Twitter at @marklemley. This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this special series hosted by Jennifer Sturiale, a group of legal scholars discuss a question over drinks. This episode features Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, Gus Hurwitz, Associate Professor of Law at the Nebraska College of Law, and Jacob Victor, Acting Assisting Professor of Lawyering at New York University School of Law discussing the following question:Many IP scholars assume that "more is more." They assume that copyright law can constrain speech, so copyright law should also be constrained. And they argue that patent law can constrain innovation, so patent law should also be constrained. But is it always true that more speech and more innovation are better? Is it possible that "less is more" or "less is better"?This episode is "patient zero" for the new series. Let us know what you think! Email brianlfrye@gmail.com or tweet @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley talks with Recode's Kara Swisher about Silicon Valley's obsession with startups getting an "exit" — usually an acquisition by one of the tech giants — and why that trend is suffocating innovation. Lemley explains the decline of IPOs and antitrust scrutiny in America, why today’s tech monopolies are especially hard to break, and how he thinks we should fix this broken system. He also discusses emerging legal issues in tech, including space, robotics and autonomous cars. Plus: What happens to companies that spurn acquisitions and remain independent, and is it possible for an acquired company to stay innovative inside a megacorp like Google or Facebook? Featuring: Mark Lemley (@marklemley), professor at Stanford Law School and director of its Program in Law, Science, and Technology Host: Kara Swisher (@karaswisher), Recode co-founder and editor-at-large More to explore: On Reset, Arielle Duhaime-Ross explores why — and how — tech is changing everything. On Recode Media, Peter Kafka interviews business titans, journalists, comedians and podcasters about the collision of tech and media. On Pivot, Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway talk about the big tech news stories of the week, who's winning, who's failing, and what comes next. And on Land of the Giants, Jason Del Rey chronicled the rise of Amazon. Season 2 will focus on Netflix and is coming soon! About Recode by Vox: Recode by Vox helps you understand how tech is changing the world — and changing us. Follow Us: Newsletter: Recode Daily Twitter: @Recode and @voxdotcom Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, and Partner at Durie Tangri, discusses his views on legal scholarship. Lemley begins by describing his own experience coming up into the legal academe, and how law practice and exposure to diverse ideas stimulate his scholarship on a broad range of subjects. He goes on to explain how junior scholars can write interesting scholarship, engage with senior scholars, and manage the academic (and practice) workload. Lemley is on Twitter at @marklemley.This episode was hosted by David A. Simon, Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, and a Project Researcher at the Hanken School of Economics. Simon's scholarship is available on SSRN. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "Artificial Intelligence & the Law w/ guests Mark Lemley & Michelle Lee" Stanford law professor and Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, Mark Lemley and visiting law professor Michelle Lee join Pam and Joe for a discussion on some of the legal issues that are likely to arise as Artificial intelligence becomes an integral part of our daily lives. Originally aired on SiriusXM on April 28, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "Artificial Intelligence & the Law w/ guests Mark Lemley & Michelle Lee" Stanford law professor and Director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology, Mark Lemley and visiting law professor Michelle Lee join Pam and Joe for a discussion on some of the legal issues that are likely to arise as Artificial intelligence becomes an integral part of our daily lives. Originally aired on SiriusXM on April 28, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

#192 In this episode we explore scarcity. Artificial scarcity created by laws and real scarcity created by our evolving lifestyles and economy. We'll see that most physical products, with drinking water being an exception, are becoming less scarce while trust and attention are becoming more scarce. More information, including show notes, can be found here.Episode Summary – Is Anything Scarce Anymore?Scarce goods and services have been a topic of debate since the original intellectual property (IP) laws were created. Products are getting cheaper to produce, but high-quality services are still in demand. On this episode of Money For the Rest of Us, David tackles the issue of scarcity with clear explanations and timely resources that are sure to help you understand this complex idea. You don’t want to miss his insights, so be sure to listen to this episode.The history of economics, scarcity, and why intellectual property laws are outdatedDavid explains on this episode that the original purpose for IP laws was to ensure people would continue to create quality ideas and content. While these laws worked in theory, they created a level of artificial scarcity. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law, explains that “IP rights are designed to artificially replicate scarcity where it would not otherwise exist. In its simplest form, IP law takes public goods that would otherwise be available to all and artificially restricts their distribution. It makes ideas scarce because then we can bring them into the economy and charge for them, and economics knows how to deal with scarce things.” While certain protections should be given to creators, scarcity needs to occur in an organic way in order for it to be effective. David illuminates this concept through the lens of TED talks and conferences. TED is able to publish all of their talks online – with full audio, video, and transcripts – because tickets to the physical conference cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.How free content can still be turned into a money-making ventureDavid features Cory Doctorow’s work on scarcity on this episode, and quotes him as saying “Although it’s hard to turn fame into money in the arts, it’s impossible to turn obscurity into money in the arts.” Essentially, even if a creator produces exceptional content, no one will know about it if they’re 100% obscure and protected. Technically speaking, this aversion to positive externalities permits the creator to live in fear of someone benefiting from their work for free. Without digital and word-of-mouth exposure, you won’t make money – period. Thus, the free content you produce and distribute can drive interested parties towards your other content, such as books or fee-for-service courses. There will always be paying customers for quality work, even if you have to get them to the door with free content.What elements are actually scarce in the 21st-century marketplace?While physical goods and products aren’t as scarce as they once were, scarcity is still widely prevalent in intangible elements such as trust, attention, and time. David features Seth Godin’s work on this episode of Money For the Rest of Us as he explains, “Trust is scarce because it’s not a simple instinct and it’s incredibly fragile, disappearing often in the face of greed, shortcuts or ignorance. And attention is scarce because it doesn’t scale. We can’t do more than one thing at a time, and the number of organizations and ideas that are competing for our attention grows daily.”The connections between automation, scarcity, and value in today’s societyIt’s much easier to automate a vehicle assembly line than it is teaching a child to read. This simple idea of product versus service connects to the broader idea of scarcity because even though it’s much easier to produce goods efficiently and cheaply, most services could never attain that level of automation. David explains that for each episode of Money For the Rest of Us, he spends 8 to 10 hours in pre-production, recording, and post-production work. For as long as he’s been podcasting, this timeframe has not considerably shrunk. This is because quality services and products that require human creativity cannot be automated. Scarcity is found in these areas, and it’s not going anywhere. The solution to true scarcity is simple: create something unique, it will earn attention and trust organically, and that’s how you grow your customer base and build a business in the 21st century.Episode Chronology[0:11] David introduces the topic for this episode, “Is anything scarce anymore?”[3:30] The history of economics and scarcity viewed through a TED talk lens[6:01] How “free stuff” can still be turned into a money-making venture[8:07] What elements are actually scarce in today’s market[10:43] Why there’s always an audience that’s willing to pay for quality content[13:20] How automation is determining scarcity and value in today’s society[21:08] The true scarce physical item – drinking water[22:30] The delicate dance between trust and attention[24:19] Net neutrality as it relates to scarcity

Check in with Brad Sheafe, Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) and David Pridham, CEO of Dominion Harbor, respectively. And on this episode a special treat is we’ll hear from two IP industry leaders over on the left coast, Kent Richardson and Erik Oliver, who along with co-author Mark Lemley published the 2017 paper entitled, “The Patent Enforcement Iceberg which can be had for download here on SSRN. Settle in for a deep, and first ever two part interview. Since we know you are all Netflix & Podcast binge watchers and binge listeners we’ve posted both interview together. So grab that evening beverage and settle in for some downright IP entertainment by 4 IP luminaries. We missed you Mark – you would have had a ball.

Check in with Brad Sheafe, Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) and David Pridham, CEO of Dominion Harbor, respectively. And on this episode a special treat is we’ll hear from two IP industry leaders over on the left coast, Kent Richardson and Erik Oliver, who along with co-author Mark Lemley published the 2017 paper entitled, “The Patent Enforcement Iceberg which can be had for download here on SSRN. Settle in for a deep, and first ever two part interview. Since we know you are all Netflix & Podcast binge watchers and binge listeners we’ve posted both interview together. So grab that evening beverage and settle in for some downright IP entertainment by 4 IP luminaries. We missed you Mark – you would have had a ball.

IP Frequently – where, while always fair, nothing is off limits. We invite you to join the conversation. Check in with Brad Sheafe, Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) and David Pridham, CEO of Dominion Harbor, respectively. And on this episode a special treat is we’ll hear from two IP industry leaders over on the left […]

Short clips from independent and up-and-coming podcasts: 0:34 - Mister Mysterio Podcast Ep 1 by Mark Lemley - http://www.mrmysterio.com/, https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/mr-mysterio-podcast/id1133816409?mt=2 * * * 10:13 - Clip from Whatever Happened to Pizza at McDonalds by Brian Thompson https://soundcloud.com/pizzaatmcdonalds, https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/whatever-happened-to-pizza-at-mcdonalds/id1152856686?mt=2 * * * 13:15 - Clip from Today's Tea with Kenny P. by Ken Peleshok - http://todaysteawithkennyp.com/, https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/todays-tea-with-kenny-p./id1066092286?mt=2&ls=1 * * * 21:40 - Leave a Message After the Tone Ep 4 by Melanie Kruvelis and Zoe Stahl - https://leaveamessageafterthetone.com/, https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/leave-a-message-after-the-tone/id1123342054?mt=2 * * * 27:52 - Twenty Thousand Hertz Ep 1 by Dallas Taylor https://www.20k.org/, https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/twenty-thousand-hertz/id1171270672?mt=2 * * * Music: Maja by Yusuf Siddiquee *** Vote at https://selects.show/ Additional thanks to Dan Kuebrich and Rachel Hamilton for comments and suggestions.

IP expert Stacey Dogan joins us to discuss: the merits and demerits of trademark law, values and stock characters of IP, non-interference and design choice, antitrust and IP optimists and skeptics, BU’s new clinics and collaborations with MIT for law and innovation. This show’s links: Stacey Dogan’s faculty profile (https://www.bu.edu/law/profile/stacey-dogan/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=87890) Barton Beebe, Intellectual Property Law and the Sumptuary Code (https://harvardlawreview.org/2010/02/intellectual-property-law-and-the-sumptuary-code/) Smith v. Chanel (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16887560236890964726) Stacey Dogan and Mark Lemley, Parody as Brand (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2170498) Stacey Dogan, The Role of Design Choice in Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862594) INS v. AP (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16577297531712180725), Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9338840886663363935), Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5876335373788447272), and MGM v. Grokster (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155) About the Microsoft Antitrust Litigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.) Kim Zetter, Federal Judge Throws out Gag Order Against Boston Students in Subway Case (https://www.wired.com/2008/08/federal-judge-t) Peter Dizikes, New Legal Program to Support Students (https://news.mit.edu/2015/support-students-business-cyber-law-0909) About the BU School of Law’s Entrepreneurship and Intellectual Property Clinic (http://sites.bu.edu/elawclinic/about-the-clinic/) And about the school’s Technology and Cyberlaw Clinic (http://sites.bu.edu/tclc/about-the-clinic/) Special Guest: Stacey Dogan.

Podcast: The Resilience of the Patent System – Interview With Mark Lemley – Internet of Things Privacy And Security

We hereby deliver an evening episode comprising role-playing, word pictures, and other podcasting art forms to convey critical information on, among other miscellany: Christian’s week of broken things, follow-up on lines, math and the book of true reasons, Mark Lemley’s article on “faith-based IP,” imagining Benjamin Franklin’s lightning powered potato peeler, iPhone copycats, and, morality aside, the death penalty’s stupidity, and the measure of a civilization. This show’s links: The Wirecutter and the Sweet Home Oral Argument 55: Cronut Lines The documentary about people competing to win a truck, Hands on a Hardbody Oral Argument 51: The Faucet (guest John Pfaff) Euclid’s Elements About Paul Erdős Mark Lemley, Faith-Based Intellectual Property Frank Michelman, Takings Mark Lemley, The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights International News Service v. Associated Press SCOTUSblog on Glossip v. Gross Associated Press, Utah Brings Back Firing Squads as Lethal Injection Drugs Remain Scarce About Cameron Todd Willingham Oral Argument 45: Sacrifice About “death-qualified” juries

Mark Lemley chats about the Alice case of the US Supreme Court and his firm Lex Machina, Ken is telling us about Facebook as a service of process in legal proceedings, Rolf tells you about the new fast-track CTM applications! Have fun! IP FRIDAYS Co-Presenters: Rolf Claessen and Kenneth Suzan Episode 15 – November 14, [...]

So let's start with Show #208, April 8, my interview with four-time guest (thanks Mark!) Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School on this term's United States Supreme Court intellectual property cases - and there are a banner number. This term's cases have addressed some of the most vexing issues in patent law generally, ranging from claim construction to abstract ideas. We discussed the primary cases, as well as current legislative efforts to address patent trolls/non-practicing entities/patent assertion entities. As always, I greatly enjoyed my discussion with Mark. {Hearsay Culture is a talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.}

A talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. This week, David interviews Profs. Dan Burk of U.C. Irvine School of Law and Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, co-authors of the forthcoming The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.

A talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. This week, David interviews Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.

A talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. This week, David interviews Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School.